Slashdot Mirror
Pakastani Politician Detained By US Customs Over Opposition To Drone Strikes
First time accepted submitter Serious Callers Only writes "According to reports, Imran Khan was detained yesterday by US officials for questioning on his views on United States drone strikes in Pakistan. Glenn Greenwald writing for the guardian: 'On Saturday, Khan boarded a flight from Canada to New York in order to appear at a fundraising lunch and other events. But before the flight could take off, U.S. immigration officials removed him from the plane and detained him for two hours, causing him to miss the flight. On Twitter, Khan reported that he was "interrogated on [his] views on drones" and then added: "My stance is known. Drone attacks must stop." He then defiantly noted: "Missed flight and sad to miss the Fundraising lunch in NY but nothing will change my stance."'"
What the hell were US immigration officials doing in Canada, if I may ask?
When flying from Canada to the US, US immigration occurs in Canada. This is known as "pre-clearance" and allows the plane to land in the US as if it were a domestic flight - including allowing flights to US airports that do not have immigration facilities.
What the hell were US immigration officials doing in Canada, if I may ask?
The US and Canada have the system set up so that you pass through US Customs in Canada if you are leaving by air. That means that your flight goes to the domestic gates in the US (and can go to small airports without any customs at all). It is actually a very useful system if you are transferring to another flight in the US; as long as you make your flight in Canada, you should have no trouble changing planes in the US.
By the way, it has an interesting legal corollary - they can't arrest you, not being in the US. They can tell Canadian police to arrest you, but they can't do it themselves. That may not help you if they find pot on you, and it certainly won't help you if they find a bomb on you, but it does mean that someone like Khan is not going to just get carted off to Guantanamo without Canadian involvement. (I suspect that he wasn't technically "detained" either, but that is probably a fine line, and he may well have felt like it was a detention.)
Note: IANA and this is not legal advice.
Another factor here is that Imran Khan is one of the few politicians who stands up against extremism. He was previously the captain of their cricket team (and a very capable player and leader - I must say), and was even then known for his secular, non-conformist views and opinions. Of all the people from Pakistan to detain, he should be the last.
rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
"our dual mission is to facilitate travel in the United States while we secure our borders, our people, and our visitors from those that would do us harm like terrorists and terrorist weapons, criminals, and contraband,"
Nice sound byte accusing him of being a terrorist without actually saying it.
Every time I see this kind of thing it just confirms that the biggest threat to peace and the ones creating racial intolerance and hatred are the US Government.
Unfortunately, it also seems like a strikingly incompetent thing to do, even if you adopt the 'the US can do whatever it feels like' school of international relations... The guy is a fairly high profile politician, if ICE wants to know what his views are, all they have to do is crack a newspaper, ask the state department, or both. Not Hard. If there is some suspicion that there is more there than meets the eye, a couple of hours in some dingy airport getting harassed by customs goons certainly isn't going to find it, and is certainly far less subtle and more offensive than more effective ways of gathering intelligence.
So, provoke an incident with Pakistan, a country with which we can barely pretend to be even frenemies with these days, in exchange for absolutely no gain? Um, good work there, guys...
EDITORS WILL YOU PLEASE FIX THE STORY TITLE. This should be:Imran Khan detained by US customs over opposition to drone strikes as in the original submission, or if you prefer Pakistani politician..., but not Pakastani...
Right, because white supremacists are plowing planes into buildings, bombing market squares filled with their own people, stoning and beheading others with government backing and attacking embassies at the drop of a hat.
Austin airplane attack on IRS. Kansas City bombing. Abortion doctor assassinations. Anthrax. Olympics bomb. Ted Kaczynski. Chinese embassy in Iraq. Though no stonings or beheadings with government backing that I'm aware of. So if those are logical ANDs (requires that all be simultaneously true) I guess it might be accurate.
The tragedy of America is that its system was designed prior to mathematical understanding of voting principles, and it is inherently unable to deal with party-politics (or "factions" as Washington begged us to avoid in his farewell address). Duverger's Law observes that such a system will certainly become controlled by just two parties. If those two parties are essentially bought out by corporations, and present candidates with effectively identical beliefs on the most important issues, then there is no way for the citizens to alter the direction of the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
I think his words were twisted there - he said - "It is very clear that whoever is fighting for their freedom is fighting a jihad ". That does not mean he endorses the Taliban's world view, far from it, just that he understands the motivation for fighting a foreign invader, and is playing to a complex home crowd. In fact he's been threatened with assassination by the Taliban in the past, has been strongly critical of them and went to visit the girl recently shot by them (he wouldn't go near that if he wanted to support them, they explicitly told him he was not welcome, but he went anyway). Just because he's not willing to condemn everyone fighting the Americans in Afghanistan does not make him a war monger. Here is the full quote, minus the editorialising from the guardian (who want page views after all):
“In the guise of the Taliban, there are several criminal gangs who didn’t even spare PTI workers by demanding extortion money.” The PTI chief said that “drone attacks are carried out with the consent of the government, and in reaction, Taliban attack civilians.” Citing an ex-employee of the US Central Intelligence Agency, he said that unless the Pakistani government withdraws its support as a coalition partner on the ‘war on terror’ it will be unable to overcome the insurgency in the country. “A military operation can be a small part of a larger solution but a conflict cannot be resolved through military operations alone,”.
If you discredit the moderate voices like Khan's you're left with the extremists like the Taliban, or Musharraf - really the west should be trying to work with moderates like him, not intimidate him into silence or funding dictators like Musharraf and the ISI who have channelled funds to these terrorists everyone is so keen to profess hatred for. It's no coincidence that Bin Laden was hiding in plain site in Pakistan, and more terrorism targeting US troops will be funded by Pakistan (and thus indirectly the US) until the US look for a political solution rather than performing drone assassinations, indiscriminately showering the Pakistani military and security services with money and hoping it will all just go away.
In which country do you have more free speech rights than the US? ALL customs operations all over the world work exactly the same: you have no rights at the border.
Huh?? WTF?! As a non-US citizen I take offence to that!
1. What free-speech rights would that would be that are lacking in basically all western countries? I am Swedish, and I can write/say whatever the fuck I want as long it is not libel/slander. And yeah, we can say *fuck* on TV too without being bleeped too. You have ridiculous levels of censorship and then you walk around saying stuff like this. I am not saying we are perfect. But we are certainly not worse than the US.
Free speech is also not some US invention(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech) as it sometimes sounds as it is:
"England’s Bill of Rights 1689 granted 'freedom of speech in Parliament' and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right." Yeah, eat that. The french!
And BTW, democracy is a greek invention from about 500 BC or whatever. And yeah, we've got that too. Only difference is we don't allow corporations a huge influence on inventions. For example, if IKEA would have been able to form superpacs we would all be dead.
2. No. Not ALL customs operations work like that. Would our customs treat a foreign public figure like that there would be a national outcry, and the opinion would be that behaviour like this would be beneath us. One thing is to ask about terrorist activities if they are actually suspected, but to ask about views on the countries' policies is low stuff. And also quite pointless. What is being described is stuff you'll normally only have to tolerate when entering obscure military dictatorships. And I would expect this to be uncommon even there.
To be able to detain and to actually detain is not the same thing.
Baboons are cute.
If you're referring to Islamic Fundamentalists
Some would argue that "Islamic Fundamentalists" is just a fancy term for normal, mainstream Muslims who aren't of the ultraliberal (from the POV of Middle Eastern folks) branch of Islam (and who are often called "apostates", not "liberals", in the same area).
Some people might argue that. But would that be based on evidence and fact, or ill-informed speculation and prejudice? My own experience (and I have lived in a Muslim country) is that most Muslims are horrified at the views and actions of the fundamentalists - like folks anywhere, most people just want to get on with their own lives without interfering in, or being interfered with by, other people - especially other people in another country far away.
Need to type accents and special characters in Windows? Use FrKeys
Imran Khan is a superstar politician that has no cultural equivalent in the United States. He's also somebody who has strong ties to the West, including going to Oxford University, having married a Brit and having been Chancellor of a British university. So this is not a dodgy politician who is rising to power in the hopes of enforcing Sharia law on the world. This guy is exactly the kind of person who could be and should be a strong ally for the West in Pakistan. On the other hand, if you wanted to find a way to alienate Pakistani moderates and those with ties to the West, this would be somebody to try and humiliate.
Yes, it will make the US look bad because this wouldn't have happened to Imran in the UK, Australia, or New Zealand. The guy is a legendary cricket player, there are few people in these nations who have not heard of him, most of us already know about his charitable work and his peaceful political ambitions. He wants his people to stop dying, shooting a young girl in the face because here farther advocates education for girls, or bombing her from above because her father wants to shoot school girls, sure the motives are different but it's the same outcome from where he stands.
For our US friends, the term "it's not cricket" means it's unfair.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.